On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka flamed, attacked, and misconstrued thusly: > Darrell Shandrow writes: > > "Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny equal access." Actually, I believe this comment, which you so neatly took out of context, originally was: > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well... He appears to be stating fact, here, not spreading baseless "trash", as you state. You further quoted him as saying: > "Wonder if this is an extension of a revised policy to deny > accessibility," First, not only is this quote taken out of context, it is also taken out of order. It is supposed to appear *above* the former statement, which then serves to support the content of this one. Further, he did not state this as fact, but proposed as conjecture, and, moreover, posed it in the form of a question, as such not even claiming it to be fact, but asking whether it might be the case, given the fact of the denial of access he later mentioned. > you only make yourself sound like a bigot and an idiot. And you make yourself appear highly illogical, and as someone who wishes to stir up trouble on the forum, by constantly attacking anyone who does not hold a carbon copy of your own biases and opinions. There is nothing wrong with debating his statements. However, doing so with more facts, and with logic, will get you much further, and might actually win you the argument such as it is, than will emotional outbursts, such as the one you have just exhibited here and in the past, and, no doubt, such as that of which I will soon surely be the target. > Or, are you claiming some inside knowledge of new policies at RH? If so, > kindly provide documentation. We'd all like to know about that. It is worth noting, that he did not state that there was such a policy, but merely suggested, and asked, whether there might be one, given recent actions on the part of Redhat. I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he listed. However, an investigation of same might be in order, so that you can coherently argue to the contrary. > Else, we just know more about you. Perhaps you've just been hearing > voices? Case in point. Now, not only have you stopped debating the issue you hold so dear, all be it as non-realisticly as you did, you have reverted to personal insults, perhaps in an effort to divert attention from the issue at hand, by involving him in an emotional response? Have you ever considered running for political office? Luke
